Friends with benefits for youth

Friendship needs no marketing campaign. Its benefits are obvious.

How about “friends with benefits”? We probably have in mind an adult scenario: sex without a committed relationship between friends who trust each other not to foul up anyone’s marriage, or whatever. Not just a hook-up: more caring and personal. Sounds good, albeit not a MAP thing.

Or is it? Actually, it is massively an intergenerational phenomenon. It is just that we haven’t been talking in these terms. We can begin to now, though, thanks to the fascinating findings of an overlooked research paper dug up and posted recently in the comments section here by “Prue”, one of our most erudite contributors. This is an article by Sylvester Madu and Karl Peltzer in the Archives of Sexual Behavior of 2001, titled “Prevalence and Patterns of Child Sexual Abuse and Victim-Perpetrator Relationship Among Secondary School Students in the Northern Province (South Africa)”.

Doesn’t sound too promising, does it? There’s the unscientific “CSA” construct, the hopelessly negative “victim-perpetrator” language, and the apparent irrelevance to developed societies such as our own in the UK of findings from far away and still exotic South Africa. Not even modern, urban South Africa at that, but “Northern Province”, wherever that might be. As it turns out, it is just south of Zimbabwe, on the southern side of the Limpopo River, which forms the national border. It has been known since 2002 as Limpopo province.

Known for bushland and wildlife reserves, including part of Kruger National Park, Limpopo province includes vast plains and spectacular mountain ranges. The people are mainly black Bantu speakers; the whites speak mainly Afrikaans. Many blacks are subsistence farmers or migrant labourers. There are urban areas but even the largest city, Polokwane (formerly Pietersburg), is small by international standards, having about the same population as Exeter or Stratford-on-Avon.

The human geography is more important to us than the physical kind, though, as we will see; but for now let’s turn to the research itself, including eye-popping findings in which friendship with benefits plays a startling role.

This was a survey of 414 secondary school students. These were students who had finished their primary and secondary schooling and had moved on; they were now in grades classed as further education and training. This meant they were over 16 but not likely to be much older. They completed a questionnaire that asked about sexual encounters they’d had with someone at least five years older before they were 16, the usual definition of CSA. Results were measured separately for three kinds of sexual activity: kissing, touching, and intercourse (oral/anal/vaginal). Among those students reporting one or more of these things, 86.7% were kissed sexually, 60.9% were touched sexually, and 28.9% had experienced oral/anal/vaginal intercourse. The results showed an overall “CSA” prevalence rate of 54.2%, with 60% for males and 53.2% for females.

Those familiar with prevalence surveys may already have spotted that these results are unusual. The high percentage of boys compared to girls is striking, as is the very high overall level of encounters. But the most interesting findings emerge towards the end of the Abstract:

“Friend” was the highest indicated perpetrator in all patterns of sexual abuse. Many victims (86.7%) perceived themselves as not sexually abused as a child, and many (50.2%) rated their childhood as “very happy.”

The real stunner, obviously, is that despite all the talk of “abuse” and “victims”, as many as 17 out of every 20 so-called victims did not feel they had been abused, and therefore cannot have seen themselves as victims. Fully in accordance with this perception, at least half of them said they had been “very happy”.

There are shrieking contradictions here, are there not, between the researchers’ assumptions and definitions on the one hand and the truth of the matter on the other?

But what is truth, as they say? It is an elusive business. So we need not be surprised to find that instead of just ditching their false assumptions and failed theory, the researchers proceeded to bend over backwards in a desperate effort to reconcile their dogma with realities that uncomfortably threatened their entire philosophy of human intimacy and – perhaps even worse for them –  their comfortable careers as intelligence officers in the war against imaginary sex crimes.

Let’s see how they did it.

Sensibly enough, they start with some reasonable points about the exceptional nature of the province, focused on the human geography briefly mentioned above. They note that in Northern Province (Limpopo) many parents work as migrant laborers, either in other provinces or at places far away from their homes. As a result, they say, many children are left either alone at home during the weekdays after school or with nannies and grandparents, “who may not give them proper care”. Thus, it is suggested, the children “are vulnerable to sexual abuse from opportunistic perpetrators”. What they mean by “proper care”, of course, is what youth liberationists might call oppressive surveillance and control.

Responding to the high prevalence rate of “abuse” among the male subjects (60%), they suggest that “absence of the adult male (who is working as a migrant laborer) in many families and the frequent single parenthood in the society contribute to adult females abusing boys”. They could definitely be onto something with this one. Totally contrary to the dictates of feminist victimological theory, it makes no sense to insist that boys who have sex with women must necessarily be seen as victims: many of them are wildly enthusiastic and can hardly believe their luck when it happens – as has been demonstrated empirically in developed-world studies much bigger than this African one, notably in the famous work of Bruce Rind and his colleagues, which I will be turning to shortly.

The human geography of Limpopo also includes village dwelling as opposed to urban life, and the ethnic composition of the population. Conducted in three different schools with the aim of capturing such differences in a representative way, the survey found a higher rate of urban “abuse” (62.8%) than rural (53.1%). The authors felt the stronger family and social ties experienced in the rural setting (theoretically enabling more “proper care”) could have accounted for this lower rate. The same control factor, they felt, also explained a lower rate of “abuse” among blacks (51.2%) than whites (76.5%). These explanations are plausible, but less significant than the unmentioned elephant in the room: once “off the leash”, whether through migrant parental absence or whatever, children have no inbuilt distaste for sexual contact with adults.

Having made a reasonable stab at accounting for the high prevalence rates, the authors fare less well when trying to explain away the students’ lack of perceived victimhood. They write:

One may also speculate that many participants who indicated “friend” as the perpetrator may have decided to ignore our age criterion for perpetrators and indicated all forms of childhood sexual relationship with a friend or some of the participants may have written the word “friend” to mean an “acquaintance” (as some people in the area colloquially use it).

But why would they ignore the age criterion? And might not an older person who was initially a mere acquaintance become a real friend in the course of a relationship? No answers are offered, which is strikingly remiss given the very happy childhoods experienced by many of these youngsters and their perception that they had not been “abused”. Apparently in desperation, the authors finally conclude that this perception “may be because of inclusion of many trivial incidents”.

Trivial? Well, there are plenty of male old dinosaurs who still do not see a stolen kiss or squeeze of the backside as any great crime, still less when such acts are welcome or invited. But within the abuse industry, even two decades ago when this study was published, this claim that any act defined as CSA was “trivial” must have raised a few eyebrows. And now, in the wake of #MeToo, one suspects they would be drummed out of the business for such heresy.

Good researchers acknowledge the limitations of their study. These authors, Madu and Peltzer, have dutifully done so, making a number of good points, including their politically incorrect one about “trivial incidents”. The inclusion of very mild “abuse” would definitely explain why some acts were not seen as abuse by the students, but by no means all or most acts were of this kind. As well as “sexual kissing” at the mild end, experienced by 86.7% of “victims”, 60.9% had been touched sexually, and 28.9% had been engaged in oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse. Of the intercourse, 7.1% said force had been used – with the implication that well over nine out of 10 of these “non-trivial” encounters (92.9%) had been unforced, with no indication that they had been coerced in any way or that the child had been other than a fully willing participant.

In view of the amazing findings of this study, it makes sense to ask what the wider research community made of it. Was it discarded and allowed to lapse into obscurity because of some scandal relating to data fabrication by the authors, or exposure of faulty research methods?

Absolutely not. The paper was properly peer-reviewed in a leading academic journal. The authors themselves have gone on to become senior figures: Madu is a professor with over 1,500 citations to his name; Peltzer’s publication record is even more impressive, with over 20,000 cites. This particular paper has been cited 138 times on Google Scholar. Most of them turn out on inspection to be not very relevant but about a dozen are: these are the ones that delve in some detail into the findings. None of them take serious issue with the research methods or express doubts over the findings so far as I can see – and I looked pretty closely.

So this paper belongs in the mainstream of the literature; it is canonical. What’s more, it is an improvement on many retrospective CSA studies by virtue of the fact that it is one of a relatively small number of studies that have asked youngsters of school age directly about their experiences, while their memories are still fresh and they have not had their feelings about it bent out of shape by anti-CSA propaganda in the media and elsewhere over years or even decades, as is likely in the case of studies undertaken deep into adulthood.

This same advantage, from kids responding directly, was seen in the Finnish Child Victim Survey on which Heretic TOC reported earlier this year. Heretics here may remember that this survey was studied by Bruce Rind, mentioned above, who highlighted the children’s strongly positive perceptions of their experiences – which we can now see should not have come as a great surprise bearing in mind the earlier data from far-away Limpopo.

I hope some readers will re-read that earlier blog, titled “Stunning comeback for a great champ”, to make their own comparisons. One striking feature of similarity between the Finnish findings and the South African ones, is that children in both studies identified some of the so-called “perpetrators” as “friends”, and that when they did so the positivity expressed was considerably higher than when this was not the case. So, “friends with benefits” indeed!



Eight-year-old Maksym Kryshtafor, a Ukrainian refugee now living with his mother in England, has lost no time making his mark here. Just four days after arriving in the country he defeated adult competition to win a chess tournament in Darlington, picking up a £400 prize.

Maksym lived in Odesa, southern Ukraine. He and his mum Iryna fled to Romania shortly after the war broke out in February. Just days before the annual competition was held, they were brought to the UK by North Yorkshire chess enthusiast Paul Townsend as part of the UK Homes for Ukraine scheme. They are now living with Paul and his family near Harrogate and Maksym has been enrolled in a local primary school.

Maksym is the current Ukrainian Under-8 Champion and defeated experienced North East players winning all five games he played at the event, as reported in local paper the Chronicle, Newcastle. But his fame didn’t end there. There has also been an absolutely huge write-up in the New York Times, with over a dozen photos of the winsome young talent!

Maksym’s success in this event brought back memories for me. I used to live near where it took place, in Darlington, County Durham, and played for a club in the county. Like Maksym, I took part in the Durham Chess Congress, in my case about 15 years ago when it was held in the city of Durham.

Unlike Maksym, alas, I did not win my event. I did manage to beat the winner of a similar congress held a few weeks earlier, but among my less successful games was one against another child prodigy, a charming boy aged about 10. My excuse is that I must have been somewhat distracted!

Maksym stares down his opponent before winning a game of speed chess in a U.K. schools tournament in June – but the really scary thing is his brilliant chess brain.



By now you have probably begun to relax, feeling you have landed safely in a royalty-free zone, secure in your belief that you won’t be triggered by endless blather about duty, service, successions, ceremonies, salutes, funerals, etc.

No such luck! My childhood role as a chronicler of our monarchy’s history cannot be ignored (or not on my own blog at any rate! 😊) I started life in August 1945 as a little Georgian, not an Elizabethan, and was six and a half when the old king died. A school exercise book still in my possession reminds me that I loyally recorded the date of his funeral and burial with my own unskilled hand and hit-and-miss spelling. But I definitely got the date right, as the official order of service shows. See photos below.

4.3 4 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

in a new study “drawing upon Western knowledge and systems as appropriate” is recommended for Abos to prevent illegal sexual experience in their “children”:

Does it mean that Abo parents and children consider the idea of sexual victimization as a Western paradigm, not their own?

Fata Morgana

At the time of the article on the 2021 Rind study, I commented the below. It still seems to me that Rind’s findings here present a serious challenge to the prevailing orthodoxy.

On the implications for close-in-age exemptions, the following extract suggests that society ought to view minor-adult encounters more optimistically than close-in-age encounters:

It was of interest to assess whether minors involved with older minors reacted more favorably (i.e., less negatively, more positively) than minors involved with adults. For reactions at the time, boys having an adult partner reacted more favorably than boys having an older minor partner, χ2 (2)=6.69, p < 0.05. In post hoc analysis, boys with adults reacted negatively at the time (9.8%) significantly less often than boys with older minors (28.6%). They also reacted positively at the time more often than boys with older minors (83.0% vs. 66.7%), although this difference was not significant. For reactions in retrospect for boys, no association occurred between older partner age group (minor under 18 vs. adult 18 and over) and reactions, χ2 (2)=0.00.

For girls for reactions at the time, no association occurred between older partner age group and reactions, χ2 (2)=3.39, p>0.10. On the other hand, for reactions in retrospect, a marginally significant association did occur, χ2 (2)=5.51, p=0.06, in which girls involved with adults reacted negatively significantly less often (34.0%) than girls involved with older minors (52.8%) in post hoc analysis. They also reacted positively more often (42.4% vs. 27.8%, respectively), although this difference did not reach significance.

In short, for both boys and girls, sexual involvement with older-aged minors compared to adults was not associated with any kind of more favorable reaction. In half the analyses, relations with adults were significantly more favorable.

warbling j turpitude

All by itself this scarcely tells us very much, does it? The verb “react” and descriptors “negatively” & “favourably” could just as well be speaking of molecular experiments in a laboratory test tube. What is the larger context? Sorry but i have never read Rind and am in need of some enlightenment here..
They’ve come for Lord Mountbatten now. Expect Winston Churchill next!

Stephen James

Here is a likely evolution of events for many cases of this kind:

Adult and child enjoy a relationship. Sex is s component but is felt by the child to be part of the pleasurable ‘package’ -> child grows older and becomes aware of prevailing attitudes to child-adult sex -> he or she starts to feel guilty->but also becomes aware that societal orthodoxy provides an ‘out’ for them, namely placing the entire blame on the responsible ‘adult’ ->the ‘victim’ starts to feel better but only by way of a mentality which demands retribution with respect to the ‘perpetrator’.


The 60 years old ‘victim’ had at least 22 years to tell about it, but he has choose this moment. Looks like speculation to discredit the ‘young’ King, who had been a friend of Lord Mountbatten.


Links to archive of Jacob Breslow’s other blog site ‘Queer Rupture’


Really thoughtful discussion thread on Jacob Breslow over at Boychat

There are some very important screenshots linked here that’re important to see. I’d seen these last year but lost the link to the archive of Breslow’s blog and couldn’t find it again. Let’s just say, though I find his writing impenetrable and to be saying a lot without saying a lot, I was happy to see that someone who is very likely an MAP was succeeding well in academia. I looked up and found out that he’d be on £50k+ a year as an associate professor at the London School of Economics (LSE), something he’s certainly worked incredibly hard for*, having come from America and devoted many years to his education while being “a broke student” (his words) while being part of vaious Foundations (e.g. the Point Foundation).

Screengrabs (screenshots) can be found on this link

*Not that I valorize “hard work”: I happen to think every job, activity, has difficulties or things that people will variously find “hard.” Just, in this case, in my judgement, my impression is that Breslow has worked very hard across many years to get to his current position. There’s speculation on boychat that Breslow will lose his job, but I’m doubtful. It really depends on if the media barrage continues and what the media choose to focus on. So far, his being at a conference in 2011 for a therapy group and being part of a Trans youth/children’s charity years later, is unlikely to be a fireable offence if my assumption is correct that his departmental supporters will be keen on “social justice” and see the backlash as nothing more than “Trans panic.” (Trying to delegitizimize transgenderism via linking it to minor-attraction, or anything even vaugley erotically suggestive regarding “children” [minors]).

[Also Tom, you might’ve missed some emails from me. Maybe check your spam. Hope you’re well! 🙂 ]

Warbling J Turpitude

totally gotta love the likes of this re Breslow…
“He has ONE hand on the “I’m a pedo!” pole, and one hand on the “PEDOS ARE BAD!” pole. The current will flow through him; he will be incinerated like a bug on a bug-zapper. He has no dialectical room to move.”

Last edited 1 year ago by Warbling J Turpitude

The passing of Nathan Larson, a male sexualist hero.


Many of his political views are vile for sure, but if it’s true that he didn’t intend to hurt that 12-year old girl and that she traveled with him voluntarily, then clearly his deeds were not as immoral as his politics. No one deserves a lifelong or multi-decade prison sentence for doing what Larson was accused of doing.

The American prison system is the worst in the Western world, and it’s even worse for sex offenders. For every year spent in an American prison, a person’s life expectancy decreases two years. There are people in American prisons serving extremely long prison sentences for victimless crimes such as CP possession and consensual contacts with minors. I’m not sure if Larson fits in that category, but if he does, he has my sympathy.


Many of his political views are vile for sure, but if it’s true…

I didn’t write it, Tom. Whose is this comment? Who is “Cyril”?


This is what his opponents say about him to discredit him, but if you read his Congress Campaign Manifesto (linked below), he sounds much more reasonable. You should expect to spend the whole night reading, though…


I found no obvious misogyny in Larson’s Freedom Flyers Manifesto, nor would I put much stock in accusations from the press, or alleged MAPs, fundamentally hostile to the rights of girls and men.

When even your own AoC proposal does not rule inceldom out, faulting the incels is a rather curious choice. Did you also fault the sufficiently adult-attracted homosexuals or interracial couples, who engaged in civil disobedience, prior to the decriminialization of their preference?


>Nothing wrong with incels or other folks you mention, Nada. That’s not what I was saying.

Except for the fact the incels invoking Larson’s argument are, in your feminist parlance, rape-advocating misogynists.

You have praised the likes of Levine and (your hero) Tatchell greatly. Let’s see some principled thinking as to why identity politics, hostility towards us or indifference to the plight of those falling outside arguments is extremely palatable in their cases, not (if even applicable) in Larson’s.

I might not agree with Larson’s politics, but a principled man, willing even to speak the truth knowing it will cost him dearly, is vastly preferable to unpricipled counterparts.

As for the AoC proposal, IIRC 12 was the limit you set in the Radical case. Where does it leave the incel couples?


>2. Your imputation that I am a victim feminist is incorrect.

Based on the weight of evidence, I have yet to see a significant difference with regard to the topic under discussion.

>3. While I find much to praise, as you say, in the work of Judith Levine and Peter Tatchell, I have also criticised both.

My point was to the *existence* of significant praise, in absolute and relative terms, compared to Larson, despite identity politics and other factors being present. (Naive to think children are not massacred in greater number, due the principles – of lack thereof – of Tatchell)

>4. You mention that I suggested an AOC of 12, but without adding that this was to be only for penetrative activities.

More qualifiers – less charitable.

>5. With regard to 4 above, you asked “Where does it leave the incel couples?” This appears to introduce a novel and apparently incoherent concept.

Incels are neither, when considering mating! But let’s turn to the special case of us, minors and couple formation. Are we to believe either no couples form, or if they do, they approve of status quo – in contrast to earlier gay or interracial couples, who you apparently have some sympathy for, subjected to prohibition? If not, there’s your incel couples. What are they to do, if not follow the example set by Larson (and his fellow freedom flyer)? Break the law in other way, including turning to violence (as is apt to happen when peaceful protest is quashed)?


The Freedom Flyers Manifesto is a different paper that he wrote by hand directly from the prison. It is quite relaxed, almost poetic, and is about his adventure with the girl (no mention of Hitler and white supremacy there):


I meant that those who feel uncomfortable when reading about Hitler and white supremacy can safely read the Freedom Flyers Manifesto, because there is no mention about that kind of things in it.

What if the cure for our current mental health crisis is not more mental health care?” A worthy read indeed


The political correctness stifles the freedom. Every day they reports another harassment story. People are afraid to write something “wrong”, to joke insultingly. All this polarizes society, creating anxiety and opportunities for incitement. All of this applies to minors too. On the one hand, they are allowed to declare their sexuality and identity, but on the other hand, their sexual release is limited by teaching them to be afraid of any touch. Why did it happen that we have both a crazy cancel culture and increase shootings ? It’s interconnected.

Hello all, i’ve just been mixing it up with J K Rowling’s mob on Twitter, a mob that must of course include many of her avowed enemies. She tweeted some kind of pedo meme/joke whose referents i couldn’t quite suss, which i’ll attach. Well anyway, one thing led to another and i found myself fielding the usual splatterfest of epithets and mantras, and solemnly trotted out pieties. Notable there however was a distinctly lesser degree of plain viciousness, with folks addtessing me as everything from ‘homey’ to ‘Chris Morris’. The latter prompted a check to see if Paedogeddon still survives on YouTube. It did not come up, but this did, which was surely gratifying. How many here knew of its posting about a year ago, it seems?


Last edited 1 year ago by warbling j turpitude

Damn! I KNEW i should have watched more of it before posting! I readily confess i got so excited by the wondrous impact of seeing the sampled Paedogeddon bits again, i was overcome with enthusiasm…..sorrrreee! But anyone know what the meme refers to?

Tom, have you had any engagement at all lately with that somewhat ‘elitist’ bunch of geezers at Unherd? I ask because i ventured a comment beneath J Bindel’s latest reckless, heedless conflation of sexual kids with “abuse”, and that comment then promptly disappeared (I’m sure you’ve seen the hitpiece i speak of here). Not just plunged to the very bottom of the stack accompanied by how many bright red downvotes, but vanished. This never fails to hurt, and hurt badly, because it is so obviously the brazen destruction of free speech, and on the part of a platform that would affect to openly champion same. It is the very antithesis of supposedly British fairplay! I’m wondering if you have any counsel on how to go about addressing them in a sent complaint? The last time this happened and i protested to them i received a very windy reply (after about two weeks’ wait!) that really didn’t even make sense to me.

Last edited 1 year ago by warbling j turpitude

A daunting task you say, Tom? Well, given your recent confession of belief in the magical powers of oxycontin, it shouldn’t be too difficult for ya to defend one who believes a “lovable” child to be in reality but a shoe, a suitable depository for the emissions of his delusional ardour? Why, by “romancing” that shoechild he could for all we know be assisting evolution in binding us to ever more exotic but dependable footwear, that will in turn assist us oxyincontinents in our mad pursuit of further reproductive bondage?

Mes excuses si ta confession était une blague!

Last edited 1 year ago by warbling j turpitude

My earnest attempt at a clever joke fell it seems entirely flat there, not least due to my writing oxycontin instead of oxytocin. C’est la vie..

But thankyou for these updates!

Last edited 1 year ago by warbling j turpitude

I don’t quite understand Tom – my comment was removed, so how can anyone now see it? Their reply? Do you mean that of the Unherd person assigned to handle complaints – mine own not even made after you assured me nothing helpful could ever come of it, “regardless.of what i say”? Or do you mean something else?


I don’t know what this article is or who this author is, however, it doesn’t surprise me that an anti-child abuse person engages in the objectification of children. Children are, arguably, the most objectified and fetishized people in society- right up there with the (foreign) impoverished, the disabled, and women. And I would argue, in excess of all of them. It is conventional to objectify children, because children are not people, insofar as our society is concerned. They are accessories. We actively fetishize children, and childhood, in so many ways- both in the non-sexual and the sexual, although we try to keep it as subliminal as possible.

Parents want the perfect children. Religious groups fetishize (in a very Nazi-like fashion) the hale, beautiful, athletic child. Hollywood almost always casts overly pretty children in their movies- fostering/adopting kids is easy, and you feel bad for the pretty, likeable children who suffer from no real issues (on screen, except as expressed in expostional conversation). It goes back to the artistic propaganda machines of the late 1800s and all through the 20th century- with artists like Norman Rockwell, Pierre Joubert, and countless propaganda pieces and youth-oriented materials utilized by the Boy Scouts, Soviet/Nazi/Western Propaganda, and every religious youth group on the planet. It showcases our rightness, our purity, our strength, our goodness. All of which we project onto our children.

Children are accessories to show how successful and wonderful we are- something we treat as props. They are things for us to project our desires onto (except the sexual ones, at least, not overtly), our unfulfilled wishes and hopes. They are to be molded by school, church, and society into what we want them to be. Blank slates for us to paint our own pictures on. They are devoid of minds, desires, wills, and personalities of their own, except insofar as they are showcaseable to impress the professors, the talent scouts, the athletic directors, and other professionals.

Their entire worlds and lives are subjected to what others want, and they have not one word about any of it. And not only is this normal, but we actively believe this to be correct, and the way children ought to be treated. Objectification of children didn’t originate with the pedophile- it originated with, arguably, as so many things, the patriarchy and the rise of settled, economically commodified societies. Just as women were chattel in early settled societies, early pastoral societies- so children were commodities, and a signifier of wealth and prestige. And that ethos has never left us. From liberal charity, welfare, and poverty porn, to conservative quiverfull movements. Children are objects in our society- and so we naturally, thoughtlessly, effortlessly objectify them, even as we criticize certain marginalized elements of society of objectifying them.

It’s so ubiquitous that almost everyone is guilty of it- including me, although at least I’m becoming aware of it. Not sure what to do about it- but it’s wrong.

Last edited 1 year ago by Perplexed
Zen Thinker

Really like your commentary. I think the issue is that childhood beauty can be devastatingly powerful, leading them to be seen as status symbols. I am also apt to put a very pretty child on a pedestal in an objectifying way, but it is only meant benevolently. Young children will always be ruled to a large extent by their parents, but I believe that children’s personal choice and a reasonable degree of autonomy should shine through, allowing their personality to flourish.

To me, some girls are like a mythopoetic child goddess, I think it shows a healthy respect to give reverence and admiration where it is due. In terms of “meeting” the child existentially on their own terms and within their own conceptual framework – I think this is actually very difficult; although again, parents will have the most intimate and personable relationships, the closest to a grounded reality.

The very high civilisational value of children will always objectify them to some degree. But then, a king is objectified, a great actor is objectified – is this necessarily such a bad thing? It suggests status and value.


I confess, it makes me freeze up a little to hear you actually talk about your…er…inclinations, so frankly and openly. Like I don’t really know what to do with that, or how to respond to that. It’s so out of the norm. Sure, I know where I am- I’m not saying I’m surprised. Only that it still feels extremely different- kind of like a deer in headlights. It’s prevented me from responding to several comments of yours on previous articles. By no means am I saying you shouldn’t say anything, or that you must try to appease my own sensibilities or comfort zone. Only making the observation and verbalizing it, in hopes that maybe I can not be so hung up about it, and move past it.

As to the dynamic of pedestal and objectification- well, that’s part of why I bring up women and feminism- because it’s similar. In the cult of domesticity, which informs most Anglo-American misogyny and sexism, women are placed on a pedestal while simultaneously made subservient- indeed, that is how such objectification works.

If you’ve seen the Netflix series “The Crown”- setting aside whether how accurate a portrayal it is, it does demonstrate the gilded cage that is royal life- you are not your own person, you don’t get to be a human being. You are a symbol, and your life is not your own, it belongs to everyone else but you. And it is certainly a form of abuse in its own right, despite the compensatory luxury and pampering; which arguably aggravate it, as extravagant wealth also has a degenerative effect on the soul.

That being said, objectification is also a quality of the mind- it happens in the thoughts and feelings of someone’s, many someones’ even, inner world.

I have an inkling that there are two, albeit complimentary, not necessarily conjoined, forces at work: the objectification in the mind, and the objectification of the person. The first is part of being human- we see things we like and are pretty- whether it’s things or people- and being unable to be intimately familiar with all things and people, can not always, or even mostly, be able to not objectify others. They will always be, until such a time as we can develop a close relationship, an object of sorts. However, this says nothing about that other person, and has more to do with you, and your own internal dynamics, which may or may not need examination and correction, depending on how it is affecting your outward life, your relationships with those around you, how you behave, and how it affects your own internal dialogue and sense of self. Certainly there are ways we objectify others which are degrading to ourselves and to those around us, and ways which are natural and innocuous, and unproblematic, and can be dealt with in a variety of healthy ways.

The second kind of objectification: the objectification of the person- begins when we as individuals or society, rob someone of their agency in life, to where their lives and image and self-expression become beholden to what we want, and what we need, rather than being chosen in every moment by themselves, for themselves, however they wish to comport themselves. Where Disney or Nickelodeon carefully curates the image and lives of their child stars, where we grab ahold of people in the public eye- however it is they got there- and demand they live their lives in accordance to our dictates, rather than their own. Where someone “must” behave a certain way, must seek our approval, or in the case of relationships, must behave a certain way in order to gain our approval and acceptance. Where we project our ideas of how things “should” be, onto them, rather than allowing them the space to be their own person. When we begin to place the burdens of our expectations on others. When they have not sought it nor asked for it.

If a great actor puts themselves out there, or a politician puts themselves out there- then their objectification is their own fault, and something they have sought after. Which is very different than their studio, firm, agent, or party carefully curating and controlling their lives and images on behalf of the party or firm or studio. That we as a society place a high value on children does not gives us the right to rob them of their personhood, to rob them of their agency and autonomy, nor does it give parents such a right. Parents do not have a “right” to make decisions on behalf of their child- rather it is their responsibility to make those decisions for their benefit, until the child is capable of making such a decision themselves, and it is the simultaneous responsibility of parents, teachers, etc. to nurture and help the child develop that capacity, not prevent it or stunt it from developing, which is also a usurpation.

So, in closing, there are two kinds of objectification at play, I think, and they are not equivalent to each other, and they do not function the same, nor have the same effect.

Last edited 1 year ago by Perplexed
Zen Thinker

Lol you find it uncomfortable that I think little girls are pretty? That’s not too unusual: politicians frequently talk about x’s “beautiful children” or “beautiful little girls”, like George W Bush about Obama’s daughters when he took office. It’s entirely moral, decorous and in due propriety to find something or someone beautiful.

I agree that objectification can rob someone of their personhood, which is why I try not to do it. Your distinction between the inner mind and the person is a good one, and we should never restrict others through our imposed values or vision.

However I also think that in practice this distinction can be blurry, as all thought, values and projections onto others originate in the mind. It is right though that to properly promote human flourishing we should allow people. especially developing children, to grow with the full uniqueness of their character, personality and personal vision.


Let us also not forget how Biden is notorious for making young girls and young women uncomfortable by touching them and sniffing their hair in public, let alone how he has been accused of sexual harassment more than once. The mainstream liberals are, of course, quick to give him a free pass for doing such things while being just as quick to condemn any adult outside their circle for simply admiring much younger people or if they end up accused (not convicted) of sexual harassment (as long as Joe is a Democrat and says he hates Trump, they will overlook anything he does or says, while being more than happy to lambaste the orange man for the times he has been accused of the same or made stupid sleazy comments).

Zen Thinker

The media protection of Biden’s overt paedophilic tendencies is incredible. He hasn’t actually ever broken the law; he’s inhabited that indistinct grey area of “questionable” behaviours, but has always got a pass from the media. He’s obviously being protected.


The very high civilisational value of children will always objectify them to some degree. But then, a king is objectified, a great actor is objectified – is this necessarily such a bad thing? It suggests status and value.

I think the above can be a bad thing, Zen–and too often is. The reason being, when you put someone, or even a group, on a pedestal it will often (certainly not in all cases, but most certainly often enough) corrupt their value systems and make them think of themselves as entitled and better than others. This will cause them to openly expect more from others than they’re willing to give, or even to see themselves as having the right to manipulate others or even to outright destroy the lives of others if that’s what it takes to get what they want. And if other people are beneath them, well, why not, right? After all, as they will think to themselves, who the hell are others compared to me? If so many people fawn over me and tell me how great I am, that must be because it’s true, right?

Let us keep in mind how so many women in WEIRD society started behaving once they gained the type of social entitlements that the #MeToo thing and mainstream liberalism in general gave them over the past two decades, when these two interconnected movements got out of hand and helped spawn the “woke” mentality. Once so many women started thinking of themselves a princesses instead of just people of a certain gender, they started weaponizing movements that were initially designed to offer them relief from the oppression and sexual harassment they were subjected to in the past. They quickly showed that when they were given a taste of power and entitlement via “positive” objectification, they were no better than the men who behaved badly towards them when the latter were the ones with the power.The same can be said of royalty, the wealthy, and celebrities in general who are given the pedestal treatment, with people admiring them so much simply because they are powerful, famous, charismatic, and very attractive–or even if they are just one of those four things, let alone possessing the entire set.

Then there is the possibility of these individuals developing all sorts of emotional issues because of the great expectations placed upon them to fit the mold of whatever the public thinks they are or wants them to be, even if that might go against human nature in general or what the individuals may want for themselves. This is why so many young actresses who gained stardom via Disney or Nickelodeon had so many issues being themselves, or more specifically, being normal young people, when they were expected to be personifications of some objectified ideal–in those cases, being almost entirely bereft of sexuality despite the obvious appeal that they naturally exuded, and despite the producers going out of their way to make them look as pretty as possible.Cognitive dissonance is rampant in these cases of “positive” objectification and perception.

Zen Thinker

Good to hear from you, Dissident. Hope you’re well.

In terms of your first two paragraphs: I would naturally treat any girl or woman I really liked as a “princess”, and many fathers similarly indulge their daughters. I think people can be fragile, and an ego boost does them no harm. An attractive female always elicits a gentlemanly response from me, but then I am incredibly attracted to real beauty, whether in JLo who’s in her fifties or indeed a pretty child. Thinking about it culturally and anthropologically, females have always been admired and objectified in a positive way by dominant patriarchal societies, and I don’t think it leads to an “entitlement complex” in the female concerned. If they accept it in a spirit of humility and recognise the love that inspires that response, they will not suddenly be selfish or demonstrate malevolent behaviours. I think rather the opposite: gratitude and a return of respect and love.

I loved a woman my own age a long time ago, or it was at least a very deep and prolonged infatuation. And I am also very deeply attracted to feminine beauty, even many years older than myself (I’m not an exclusive MAP at all). With children (and I tend to exclude young teens who don’t really do it for me for whatever reason), I feel love, warmth and respect. I naturally want to put them on a pedestal, to care for them, look after their every need, and instil them with confidence and self-belief. As I said, this male behaviour has its origins in Medieval courtly romance, where the lady was revered and given a deep spiritual dimension. I think this is a really important factor in male-female love.

You also mention “emotional issues” arising from the man’s admiration and reverence. Again, I don’t believe it has this effect; the attitude of reverence for the female love object is very traditional and grounded in profound psychological truths about the nature of the sexes. Finally, is such love or reverence for a little girl in any substantive way different to love for a young woman? I don’t believe so; albeit our culture does not allow it, or only in hidden and covert ways, which are shielded from the vulgar popular gaze.

Zen Thinker

We know (courtesy of the IWF) that CSAM has seen a shocking and unprecedented rise, but these must be the stupid or uninformed, because only an idiot would risk their hide on that toxic junk in today’s social media landscape.

True, Meta’s stock price is in a death spiral at the moment, but I can’t recommend their product Instagram enough to conscientious and responsible MAPs, i.e. those who treat the rules of the game with respect.

I don’t recommend TikTok in the same way because last I checked, their FYP (“For You Page”, i.e. their core algo) deliberately excludes children. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this.

Also, TikTok is a potentially dangerous landmine of adult-child interaction, which can land one in serious trouble (so many pitfalls to negotiate!) whereas IG is mostly parent-run.

I feel like such a product in fact protects MAPs from criminality, because when the IG algo is firing properly (and it can be hit and miss) it’s truly awesome, and provides more than adequate fulfilment, because we all fundamentally desire beauty and aesthetic appeal. Trust me, it can be a beautiful experience, both viscerally and aesthetically.

But this point is crucial: Instagram literally protects against criminality. It, in a way, legitimises MAPs. Offering a path of fulfilment and yet one that is safe and legal is key to the “final solution” for MAPs (lol). So whether this is deliberate design or happy accident, I am impressed with Meta for trailblazing this.


Btw, Tom, did you notice that Zen Thinker always italicizes social media terms like “Instagram” and “YouTube”? This is not intended as a critique of any sort, just a simple observation, as I never saw anyone else do it before and I find it interesting!


a feminist and an official seems to support adult-child sex:


@Tom, I would still be very curious as to what legal reforms you and your peers were proposing back in the 60’s and 70’s. See how they stack up to what we have now, and see if any might be worth revisiting or revising. I can’t imagine it contained only things that would outrage people now, surely some of it would have a great deal of relevance to the conversations about sex and consent and the law that we’re having today.


I’m kinda surprised at the rather conservative tone the authors take, and the seemingly legalistic approach they have, at first glance. While the content may be radical, it’s a far cry from some kind of free for all and certainly not written in a radical style. It’s interesting to note that there is in fact still an age of consent, even if it is significantly lower, not that I’m knocking its presence.

It seems somewhat cumbersome, though- an open invitation for a whole slew of new litigation. The lawsuits would be endless (truth be told- lawsuits are already endless in duration and supply). It seems overly complex in some ways and overly simplistic in other ways, though I suppose that’s just the nature of lawmaking in general. I’ll have to give it a more thorough consideration before giving a more detailed analysis.

Last edited 1 year ago by Perplexed
Stephen James

What about ditching the age distinctions and just have the system of injunctions applied irrespective of the ages of those involved?

Stephen James

I meant leaving out the age distinctions in the full proposal, as they don’t seem to me to be justified.


Dear Tom, did you ever thought to reissue your book to reflect the changes and knowledges gained over the past 40 years ?

Stephen James

If you were aiming to publish it in 1995 then it would have been a 15th. anniversary edition (not 25th.)!


Great post Tom. Very positive.

Zen Thinker

Two things:

1) Tucker did an extended headline feature on his show on Monday on the sexualisation of children and MAPs. He expressed fury that society was colluding to “sexualise children” through teaching & teaching materials, all-ages drag culture, etc all emanating from the top with Biden, who, Tucker reminded us, took showers with his daughter as a little girl. There was at least some undeniable empirical evidence to suggest liberalised attitudes on sex have been pushed. For example, some extremely explicit books encouraging sexualisation were available in school libraries, from very young ages too. This isn’t the world of even ten years ago. And have you heard of the Prostasia Foundation Tom? Tucker and fellow conservatives hate it. They push a pro-MAP, anti-abuse agenda, with abuse being especially defined as contact with a child against their will. He was also furious that Allyn Walker had received a promotion lol.

2) The Overton Window is shifting on Insta. ‘Eroticism’ is subjective but fully clothed child eroticism is in my opinion being shown within the legitimising framework of the Instagram platform. Things that would have got me shit scared ten years ago are slowly but surely creeping into the randomised algo driven “reels”. And for the avoidance of doubt, Instagram is a heavily policed and regulated platform and anything that passed its rigorous systems is 100% legal and legit. So this is perhaps as good a barometer as any of shifting social mores – it is effectively a cultural commentary on our attitudes towards children.

Zen Thinker

Lol “my pal Tucker”. I understand what you’re saying, but surely MAPs can be right wing too? I like Tucker on many cultural issues, but have profound disagreements as well, such as this (and gun rights).

Minor attraction is not automatically a left wing issue. There’s a complex ‘dot plot’ to many people’s politics. I support MAP rights and criminal rehabilitation, but also religious rights, freedom of speech and preservation of the traditional arts.


Amusingly, the left and right wingers in the United States often accuse each other of “promoting pedophilia” or “sexualizing kids”, etc. They all agree that this is a horrible thing, but do not agree on which political side is “responsible” for it. Currently, open-minded and objective thinking on the MAP attraction base and youth sexuality in general is radical, not liberal, thinking, and exists outside of any official political ideology or party platform.

.And for what it’s worth, I agree with Zen on having both strong agreements with Tucker on cultural and various economic issues, but disagreements regarding his embracing of the popular moral panics that are currently mainstream, not “left” or “right” (unlike Zen, however, I also mostly agree with Tucker on the gun issue), and I also disagree with him on many other economic issues.Hence, he’s my “pal”or “enemy” depending on what topic he’s discussing 😀


Less currently, decades ago, I was slagged off from the left for writing a “liberal” (as in despised “bourgeois” liberal) book on these issues and trying to pass it off as a “radical” case!

People of all political stripes, then and now (but especially now) tend to equate any view they dislike with the political ideology they most dislike. To mainstream right-wingers of today, they would accuse you of being “woke” for your book if it was published now; to the mainstream left-wingers, they would accuse you of being “alt-right” for your book.

Also, I never heard the term “slagged” in the context you used it, as it’s another cool Briticism not used in the American lexicon, but it’s now part of my lexicon 😀

Admittedly, given that gun ownership has been so deeply entrenched in American culture for so long, the best way to reduce gun violence in the US is not necessarily as obvious as it seems to most of us here in the UK.

I can understand why many people across the world dislike guns..I do agree, however, that simply trying to ban them would not solve the problem in the USA. Personally, I would not want to be without a gun for protection where I live, as you totally cannot rely on the police to protect you in a big city, as it can often take as long as an hour for them to respond to a call.. And I speak as a person who goes out of his way to avoid trouble.

I can also attest from personal experience that it’s entirely possible to own a gun and be completely responsible with it, and there are several under-reported cases in the liberal-dominated media in the USA where a responsible civilian gun owner who was carrying a concealed weapon used it to take down a spree killer that suddenly appeared in his midst and saved numerous innocent people. Contrary to popular liberal reporting in the USA media, a lunatic with a gun does not automatically become John Wick, with well-trained civilian gun owners utterly unable to stop him. Here is a recent representative example that you have to dig in order to find since it won’t appear on the front page or prominent spot in any mainstream social media outlet:

I trust, though, you do not approve of the way Alex Jones has dismissed (or used to) the Sandy Hook massacre as fake news?

Absolutely not! I will, however, agree with even Jones on a few things if he says something that I actually agree with, or which the available evidence actually suggests happened. This is why I will not automatically disagree with something Tucker Carlson says just because he identifies as right-wing, or even an obvious nut like Jones simply because he’s a nut; nor will I automatically agree with someone about something simply because they identify as left-wing. I think the actual, factual truth is more important than what “side” of the political aisle it comes from, or even the likeability or sanity levels of the person saying it. I think this point is all too often lost in modern political discourse, which insists that everyone has to fully agree or fully disagree with something someone says due to the above allegiances and factors.

Incidentally, I think my blog on that horror story would have been before you first rocked up here, Dissy, so I now wonder what you might make of it.

Thank you for the link and for valuing my opinion on this! I shall read it and get back to you on it asap!


lol! Yes, I get your point that he doesn’t say too many things that are true. But my own point is that the fact that he is a nut and totally unlikable does not mean I will disagree with him if he makes a claim that evidence bears out. And by contrast, that doesn’t mean I will ever go out of my way to quote him due to his deserved bad reputation. We can disagree with people on a thousand points while still agreeing with them on one or two.

Let us NOT forget however that the publication “Show Me!” hauled out the same bizarrely hypocritical line to justify itself: a child informed by this book on sexual matters will not be so easy prey to “sexual perverts,” “psychopaths,” and “strangers.”

We were it seems by 1975 already well over our heads in rampant doublespeak.

Last edited 1 year ago by Warbling J Turpitude

I don’t recall reading this “hypocrital line” or anything alike in my edition; on the other hand, there were references to Bronsgerma and other studies that showed that sexual relationship between adults and children often have positive consequences for both parts. Editions printed in different countries had probably different prefaces and commentaries.

Warbling J Turpitude

Try page 158?

[MODERATOR: Would help to keep the conversation open to all if some detail given.]


“For example, some extremely explicit books encouraging sexualisation were available in school libraries, from very young ages too. This isn’t the world of even ten years ago. And have you heard of the Prostasia Foundation Tom? Tucker and fellow conservatives hate it. They push a pro-MAP, anti-abuse agenda, with abuse being especially defined as contact with a child against their will. He was also furious that Allyn Walker had received a promotion lol.”

> To be picky, “encouraging sexualization” doesn’t seem accurate to me: “sexualization” as a discourse relies on the notion of sexuality as an external thing imbued, implanted, to be really fancy, interpolated, into the “child.” Aren’t sex ed books working from an opposing presupposition, accepting (on some level, and sometimes begrudgingly), that minors can have erotic feelings and experiences regardless of social or familial proscriptions? I think the unexpressed concern in sexualization panic is the fear that young people’s normative sexuality is being acknowledged, as sex ed books necessarily do.

Though, of course, it’s a great thing that sex ed books of any kind are published and available. Tom below mentioned the book “Show me!: A picture book of sex for children and parents”. I believe I’ve said it before but I really love the intro to this book, available in English online, written by Helmut Kentler. Very thought provoking and well-worth a read. Kentler came from a background influenced by Reich and his own experience of living though the German Nazi regime. A very sex negative early life, from what I’ve seen he came to believe that sexual repression has a relationship to violence (similar to Prescott Tom cites in his 2018 article as support for the claim that sexually freer societies are less violent). I find it quite powerful reading Kentler and others who lived through Nazism. Far more than the Left at present, they seem to recognize the importance of free speech, having known how awful it can be to be arrested or even killed for dissident speech.

Reminded of a beautiful article by sexologist Erwin J. Haeberle who was sympathetic to MAPs:

> He was also furious that Allyn Walker had received a promotion lol.

Again, to be picky, hasn’t Allyn accepted a demotion as such? They went from assistant professor at OId Dominion to post-doc research fellow at John Hopkins…

Zen Thinker

Hi Prue, yes that’s a really good point, are books such as Gender Queer acknowledging sexuality and not imposing something externally? I think this is a very complex question and obviously conservatives and liberals interpret it differently. I broadly welcome a less repressive sexual environment for children, though. And my view is that these books are not necessarily tasteful or produced to a high standard of “artistic” integrity, but that if they begin to end the Victorian era repression that all children have had to grow up in, that is surely positive.

On Allyn Walker, my apologies, Tucker Carlson described it as a promotion, but you’re no doubt more of an expert on academia!

Stephen James

>Biden, who, Tucker reminded us, took showers with his daughter as a little girl

Surely Biden has never been a little girl! 🙂

Stephen James

Ah! Don’t get me started!

Zen Thinker

Tom, re: Prostasia, they may have an “orthodox” interpretation of abuse, but according to An Open Secret, a Twitter account with a 112k following, “they advocate for legalising child porn, as well as abolishing the sex offender registry.” Is this true or more fake news?

As for Tucker Carlson, tbf he didn’t say this about Prostasia, I got mixed up with another story, where a Spanish minister is purported to have said: “kids need to know their bodies and know adults can’t touch them unless they (the kids) want to. And that the kids are free to have sexual relations with whomever they want as long as there’s consent.” I can’t vouch for the authenticity of this quote, it was translated from Spanish and reported by @Cernovich – a 1m Twitter account.

With Carlson, yes he regularly distorts the truth but I watch him for entertainment.


Prostasia is for legalising child sex dolls and virtual CP, that is, synthetic images. They are against legalising real CP with real kids.


^This here. To me, Prostasia has never appeared to be more than a VirPed-light to me. The organization gets a lot of support from people consuming fictional child porn, since that type of content as slowly but surely been moved towards illegality around the Western world over the last two decades.

They would have already been disbanded had they ever supported intergen sex, even to the milquetoast degree that Newgon does it.

Zen Thinker

Well, the level of hatred out there is insane…pro-MAP organisations don’t stand a chance. Virped has been permanently suspended from Twitter, simply for being unpopular.

I was just browsing Twitter anti-MAP accounts, and someone was celebrating that a “pedo” in their neighbourhood committed suicide. There were a tonne of jubilant comments, firework GIFs, lots of “awesome” and “this has made my day”. Another said, “at the very least, all ‘pedos’ should be banished from society”. And lots of talk of woodchippers. It was brutal, unsophisticated, unintelligent, but represents a groundswell of feeling among “ordinary people”.

Obviously the lack of Christian compassion and the dumb brutality sickened me. It was a bestial display of “attack the outsider”. Now you may understand why MAPs hide themselves on social media.

And of course hurting a vulnerable child is wrong, but minor attraction is a mental state, not a violent act of sadism. The stupidity, the animal aggression of broad anti-MAP sentiment shocks, sickens and appals me. Most of us must permanently hide our identities or be crucified.

I can only speak for myself, and I would never harm a child, or ever attempt any form of contact, physical or online. As long as draconian punishments exist, it is one landmine in life to avoid. As people who read my comments know, I use safe Instagram for reels and photos of kids. Never anything illegal or even in a grey area; maybe occasionally YouTube. I may view IG for the aesthetic appeal, and sometimes I may masturbate, and I also use Pornhub for regular teen porn. My favourite age is 6-7 but I can get off to 18-19 year olds no problem.

So I’d like to know where the harm is in being a MAP and engaging in these behaviours, which apparently merit a woodchipper death.


and I also use Pornhub for regular teen porn

This is nonsense. Imagine if by the request “adult porn”, all sites would show videos with 50-60-year-old actors, discarding everyone else. Very few actors in the section “teens” look like true teens. It’s just carrots for donkeys (no offense) ploy to throw overboard the bulk of teenagers under 18. The most hypocritical thing is that all those “teens”actors not immediately discover their erotic talent after their 18th birthday and definitely already had experience.

Last edited 1 year ago by Leonerd
Zen Thinker

I think some eighteen year olds look very cute, and I’ll take whatever I can get.

Doesn’t mean it’s ideal.


Of course, but this legal deception annoys me.


Hey To, just letting you know I will get back to you sometime later, and want to say thank you in general for your kindness and supportive nature.

I love the blogs like this where you go though, explain, and deconstruct research. I think you’d be a very good science communicator: in fact, you already are!

I think you might like the new quotes from Emma Goldman and Simone de Beauvoir on Newgon’s feminism page:
I want to make sure there’s a good page that archives sympathetic feminist figures/arguments: although feminist activism has been mostly horrible to MAPs, intellectually, feminists have been willing to challenge doxa over MAP/intergen issues and I think easily availability of quotes fom key figues, even just knowledge about their sympathies, is helpful fo arguing that MAP/YL rights isn’t necessarily anti-feminist.

There’s a book cited there – New Versions of Victims: Feminist Struggles with the Concept, ed. by Sharon Lamb (a name I’m sure you’ll recognize)? Have you heard of this book? I think you’ll like it. Must run off to work!


I want to make sure there’s a good page that archives sympathetic feminist figures/arguments”

Newgon still seems to be missing some stuff Judith Butler has said and written.

Butler is interesting because despite criticizing age of consent laws and – in a typical vague academic way – defending intergenerational relationship, they have also said quite prejudiced stuff about MAPs.

some quotes made by Butler can be found here:


Thanks for the links. I have butler’s paper on sexual consent and have watched the talk you linked, which is a reading of said paper. Judith Butler’s written there so I don’t forget to add her: will get around to it soon! Links are appreciated!

Butler’s comments seem a mixed bag. I mostly remember her comments about non traumatic incest, but let’s see, perhaps she’s been harshest on the P…


>even just knowledge about their sympathies, is helpful fo arguing that MAP/YL rights isn’t necessarily anti-feminist.

Looking at Goldman, I found no evidence she defended the rights of men loving little girls, despite apparently loving a man when she was a little girl and living at time when feminists/progressives attacked such rights. Arguably, her sympathies for, and defense of, homosexuality included pederastry.

Are the MAP rights of those left undefended necessarily feminist?

A good page on feminism, in sharp contrast to one white-washing feminist anti-pedophilia and presuming misogyny in skeptics, would be of benefit for individuals and the wider MAP community. As far as feminist support/sympathy goes, be specific and take a conservative approach. Far better to underestimate than include at least one, like Judith Butler, explicitly hostile to pedophilia.


Yes I’ve recently linked to a very good (if horrible) example of anti NAMBLA activism by one self identified feminist. I certainly have no problem including more Anti quotes/sources. If you have anything you recommend to look over, especially from 1st wave feminism which [I think] was often hostile to youth sex work at the time, that would be cool… I can see an argument about hygiene and poor work conditions but I’ve seen it claimed that 1st wave feminists were very against sex work and would like to see what arguments were given…


The problem with too many people of any given ideology, including liberalism of the past and present, is their stated “solution” to poor working conditions et al attributed to a certain vocation is to try to legally ban said work instead of getting the government involved to regulate and improve said conditions.

A true, legit democracy should have as few regulations as possible and seek to solve problems via democratic means, not authoritarian ones. History has shown that the latter never works out well for a supposed democracy or turns it in a more genuinely progressive direction for all concerned. This is why I fail to see actual concern for the well-being of these sex workers as the reason behind whatever the 1st wave’s argument against sex work happens to be. More likely than not, there were strong moralistic reasons attached to it that tainted their views and made the proposed “solutions” go in an authoritarian direction. Most importantly, denying women freedom of choice about something is not genuine emancipation, but protectionism.


No criticism of the alleged rights of some women to control the sexual market.

It’s obvious the arguments are based on selfishness, as the interests of young girls, sex workers or not, need not be those of older women of the upper classes.


“If the law punished every abnormality we’d be kept pretty busy sargent.”

“Even so sir. This law was made for a very good reason, if it were changed other ‘weaknesses’ would follow.”

“I can see you’re a true MAP, Bridie, Huh?”

“Well, there’s nothing wrong with that sir.”

“Of course not, but there was a time when that was against the law you know.”


Tom, sixty one years since “Victim” 1961. Made by a pro-gay team 6-years after gay War-Hero victim Turing was driven to suicide by neo-Victorian hypocrite homophobe UK cops.

Leading to the very thorough 1959 pro-gay Wolfenden Report, buried by the hypocrite homophobe neo-Victorian Tories. Until modern postwar Labour in 1967 finally made the first UK Gay ‘OK’ Law 21+ in-private (no ‘fun cottaging’).

And a full 30 years further on in 1997-2000 New Labour finally enforced (via the rare ‘Parliament Act’) the EU-made ‘Equal Age of Consent’ 16+ straight or gay LGBTQ?

So, with your connections Tom, in modern youth-made citizen media, surely it’s time now for a YT or similar ‘streaming’ WorldWide BLOCKBUSTER re-make of “VICTIM”; with important intro statement, “Always Respect TRUE Victims”.

Realistic synopsis: A Swingin’ 60s UK-internationally feted Rock Star and his group are for years naturally stalked, groomed, grabbed, groped, layed Worldwide by swarms of (many underage) predatory fans. For years thereafter as adults celebrating their NON-VICTIM proactive ‘Trophy Sex’ with the stars.

Until, you guessed it, the 1980s ongoing CSA BIG $cam creating VICTIMS!

A Mass Deception, fake media-masked as so called ‘Child Protection’. For Ratings, Profit, BIG Cash Compo, BENT Cops’ careers, and always ‘MeTooMoreDough’ – DOH?

*Include: Elvis, Beatles, Stones, Bowie, LedZep & Co now with gently ageing YouTube NON-VICTIM fans like Lori Mattix, Pam Des Barres & Co still BOASTING of their non-recent historic (not hysteric) mere underage sex with the stars!!!

Paraphrase, honest underage, now gently ageing NON-VICTIM, Tuesday Weld, “Around 1959 I was a 13 year old Hollywood ‘Wild Child’ having HOT affairs with mature stars Frank Sinatra, Raymond Burr, and John Ireland. So, Stanley Kubrick asked my Mom for me to test for his planned BLOCKBUSTER ‘Lolita’. I said, ‘No thanks…and I don’t need to test – I AM Lolita!’ ”

Stephen James

It is very understandable that pro-gay and pro-MAP people (some of Turing’s sexual partners were quite young) should be very receptive to the idea of Turing’s having killed himself owing to state persecution, but, as I understand it, the evidence for suicide is weak. (For example, Turing appeared to his friends to be fairly cheerful in the days preceding his death.) Of course this is not to deny the inhumanity of the laws against male homosexuality then in force in the UK.


Have a link to a free version of the article being mentioned in the blogpost. May I post it here, or is it better not to be done, due to potentially risky copyright issues?


Understood, Tom. Then, a simple advice for anyone interested: just use Google Scholar. You’ll find all what I found there, and much more.


Tom, was the research ever condemned by the South African parliament? Sorry, just a joke…
But I wonder why you bring up such a big topic related to a minor study made twenty years ago in far-away latitudes? Maybe was the study discussed recently on Sexnet or something?

Zen Thinker

The true potential for any legitimate and sanctioned sexual contact with a child seems like a forgotten Eden, a dream too wonderful to bring into reality.

But as the poet John Ashbery wrote:

Why be unhappy with this arrangement, since

Dreams prolong us as they are absorbed?

Something like living occurs, a movement

Out of the dream into its codification.

If we use the power and force of the imagination, and the ability to dream, we may find that life does not pass us by too harshly, and that we can be happy in our “reveries” of youthful beauty.

Stephen James

If his opponent happened to be a young BL, Maksym’s ‘staring down’ would be truly deadly!


He’s not yet 8 years old, so his brain is far from being fully developed. How can he consent to moving the pieces?


Oh, thanks for linking to the article! Much appreciated… And comes handy, since I intend on revising the MAP Starting Guide tomorrow.


I am guessing your update will include a clarification of the UKCP’s recent more conservative position on the AoC?

If so, would you mind producing a copy on NewgonWiki, or having a copy hosted?


Strat refers to the CPGB (Communist Party of Great Britain,, which publishes Weekly Worker, and which is more left wing than the better known Communist Party (CPB). In the past, the CPGB opposed AoC and advocated finding other measures to protect youth.
NB. Odesa (Ukrainian) / Odessa (Russian) is in the South of Ukraine, not the West of it.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
Scroll to Top